Preserved Topic: Peanut Gallery for "Should Drugs Be Legal?"

All comments/compliments/opinions/questions should be asked/stated here please.

Try to be respectful to the debaters, no flaming or verbally asaulting them, respect their opinions too!

Slimies are aloud, but because these threads tend to get long (we went through 4 on the last one) I ask that you do not post your graphic sigs (taglines are acceptable) to keep the filesize down to a minimum.

Lets get it on! Again!

cool beans!

*pulls up, unpacks chair and table, takes off mumu and fashions it into a tent-like structure*

Tie Dyed T-Shirts! Get em here, get em now!

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

OK this should be an interesting one. Would smoking the peace pipe imply that we leant towards one camp or the other? Or just staying happily neutral?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

what the hell am I getting myself into .. lol


.::. cEll .::. 513

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-19-2002).]

No, I think smoking the peacepipe is a mutual fealing .

OK seems like i am up to bat first so i will go pick up some ammo i mean facts and expect the first post to be up over the weekend, now i am off to feed my caffiene addiction (hey its legal may not be good for ya but legal)

pops over to njuice and grabs a few souvenier t shirts....


PS correction rammstien what have WE let ourselves in for.....Let the debate begin and let the best argument win

pps Emps depends on what WS put in it.....

ooops damn nearly blew it before i started didnt read the debate properly damn now i am going to have to read up on another countries law and legislaton etc, Insider thanks fopr the twist (next time try and stick to the damn topic) in case ya forgot should drugs be made legal....ok bitching over, gonna need some extra time as my argyment facts was based on the concept not based on the location aswell....grrrrr

[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 09-20-2002).]

Pssst, if he tells you, he will have to kill you .

bump so the ref can get his act together

are we talking Legal everywhere? or just in America .. and I thought Mari was legal in most european countries?

ps .. though it doesn't change my arguement much .. I'm sticking to my frist round statements and backing it up with other facts .. this should be fun .. I've actually already changed someone of my view point on the subject .. so I'm really going to have a great time with this and I really don't care who "wins" .. I've already learned more then I had originally thought I would have

kudos to everyone

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-20-2002).]

Ram NOW I havent got a clue the topic is should drugs be legal...but the ref has it different in the formal thread SNAFU....

and no MJ IS NOT LEGAL IN MOST OF EUROPE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

isn't the topic "should Drugs be legal?" .. I'm arguing "yes it should" and your argueing "no it shouldn't" .. atleast that's what I got from it .. I'm pro your con

I've already prepared my opening statement .. just have to change where I talk about America .. because I assumed we were just talking about legalizing drugs in America .. but it still doesn't change my opening statements

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-20-2002).]

ram me niether as far as openers go but my facrs n figures were more global than states still no biggy i guess ius the concepy thats is being argued and the same applies globally, just gonna have to aplly us facts n figures specfically now....

RS: No one wins, it is just a fun little thing we do!

Yes, it is in America, but feel free to extend your sources to europe but you are representing Pro for legalization of drugs in AMERICA. If anyone feels this is unfair I apologuise .

ins thx for the clarification...look for my opener soon


and lets have some fun

InSiDeR .. let me clarify .. I understand no one "wins" but I'm sure we all know some arguements are more compelling then others .. in that sense there is a "winner" .. mind you .. I put it in quotes as it no one is declared a winner but it is clear what points are more valid and properly represented through facts and examples

game on tom .. game on .. I toss down the gauntlet!

*gives Insider a complimentary Official Ozone Debate Tie Dyed T-Shirt and pats him on the head*

There, there...

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

(<--- for suho)

THE COLORS~!

Ahhh...nothing like a good peacepipe before a debate *Puff, puff*

*Sits down next to Njuice* Peacepipe? Nice Mumu....wow, the colors...oh, the colors...

Peacepipe, anyone?

*pulls from WS's peacepipe a few times, hands him a complimentary shirt as well*
I much agree, just gotta get a good seat, lean back and watch it all unfold. If I make a few quick bucks in the process with these things, all the better, no?

*marks a dollar off each shirt*

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

Thank you, InSiDeR. I was beginning to think I wouldn't get my fix for the day. Toss that peace pipe this-a-way, hombre... looks like we're in for a doozy.

[Edit: sig removed]

Cell 270

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 09-23-2002).]

Hehe...

*Passes Peacepipe*

Oh yeah, this is gettin' off to a great start...thanks for the shirt, Njuice! *puts on shirt* Groovy, man, really groovy...

<A HREF="http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/268526

[takes the peacepipe] .. ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

well follow inmates .. tomorrow I leave for Mexico for one day .. will return on Sunday .. but I have my opening statements ready .. so if you don't see me respond til Sunday or Monday .. you'll know why

[pases the peacepipe to tom] .. come on tom one smoke wont hurt you .. I know your against the legalization of drugs but this is different .. this is us .. your follow inmates .. HEHE ..


.::. cEll .::. 513

**tiki comes in grabs a t-shirt. Kicks off his flip flops and puts his feet up. Pulls out his grocery bag full of fresh roasted Georgia peanuts**

What was that Insider? A pre-emptive " "?

Suho, ya better watch it or the refs gonna eject you from the stands.

**Grabs pipe, Takes a toke **

Thats why I like you WS - you're always prepared.


-tiki, cell 478

~eagerly awaiting opening arguments~

hey folks sorrz for the delay something cropped up this weekend in r-l will try and get something up later today or monday, but its worth the wait.

thanks for keeping us up to date

OK Here is my approach to this debate as its a 1 - 1 i will use if everyone agrees the format i have used in the past,


1.opening statement on my side of the argument

2.opening statement from RAM

3.My full argument supported by facts figures etc.

4.RAMs full argument

5. q and a session

this is i think what insider was asking for but just asking for clarification so i dont get my ass chewed for not putting any supporting data in an opening statement and saving it for the full argument.


thx tom

opening statement posted in formal debate

very nice opening statement, but let me make a suggestion....

you would have made it much better if you would have simply said "the following drugs should not be legal because..."

but since you are going to catch up with that in ur next post, well said

ok ram your up!

Yup, insider said it, you should have said why they should not be legal. Instead of arguing against the reasons why they should. I sure hope your real argument consists of more than reasons why "the other guy is wrong"...



[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 09-22-2002).]

While I agree with the form InSiDeR and Dan have suggested, I'm also struck with disappointment that the reasons against aren't more obvious to all. But since this is a debate, it would be very good to spell it out.

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been known to happen), but I thought this was going to be a "general" discussion--ie, no specific drugs were to be discussed. I know making it a philosophical argument may make it a bit difficult, but there are varying degrees of drugs out there, and comparing some of them is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't think the medical benefits of cannabis should come into play here, since that is one specific drug.

tom, no offense meant here, but you also might want to be a bit more careful with punctuation (esp. commas and dashes) in your posts. I had to read some of those sentences twice to figure out what you were trying to say.

I just got back today .. and I haven't had time to read tom's opening arguement .. but expect my response tomorrow


.::. cEll .::. 513

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-23-2002).]

Now lets not try to bash tom, remember my first post sucked too...

quote:

---

I thought this was going to be a "general" discussion--ie, no specific drugs were to be discussed.

---

Suho, you don't expect them to use examples and stories to follow along the means of discussion? I do! I expect them to say things like:

"This person died after a cocaine over-dose at yey time of day at yey place."

This way we can better understand thier pov in the debate.

quote:

---

Slimies are aloud, but because these threads tend to get long (we went through 4 on the last one) I ask that you do not post your graphic sigs (taglines are acceptable) to keep the filesize down to a minimum.

---

tiki, ws, and ram, you aren't being mindful of the taglines only rule

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 09-23-2002).]

Well, first of all, I wasn't bashing tom (as I hope he realizes).

Secondly, perhaps I am misunderstanding the subject of the debate. In my mind, if you are going to have a "general" drug discussion, it's going to be a philosophical debate on (ultimately) personal good v. social good. If the debate is going to include all illegal drugs, you can't very well have people making statements about individual drugs. Like I said, it's like comparing apples and oranges when you're trying to have a debate about fruit in general.

I don't know. It makes sense to me, at least. But as long as you are happy with what the debaters present, then there's no problem, right?

Remember, this is the peanut gallery, and the people here are going to throw shells on the stage from time to time. Don't feel that you need to sweep every single shell off the stage the moment it hits the floor. Just let people babble on.

"I'm also struck with disappointment that the reasons against aren't more obvious to all."

Wow Bugs, I didn't expect that to come from you... You realize that if you take 100 people, and show them each these *reasons*, they'd still have 100 different oppinions as to why or why not drugs should be legalized.
I'm also sure there are some people (and some of which are as smart as you are) who think that the reasons for legalization are just as obvious.

Debating this would be useless if there was already a definate answer.

Dan, you know what? I was being lazy once again. Let me explain what I thought I read and why I said that. For some reason, I thought the point was made that tom should have spelled out the reasons why the drugs he mentioned have negative effects on the vast majority of those who use them.

As I read more carefully your comments, you were talking about the "legalization" rather than their effects. So FWIW, I still hope most people agree that the effects of these drugs in society has been a net negative.

Would you like some peanuts?

Im sorry too, for sounding off at you. I agree with you that drugs do have a negative effect on society, but we cant just ask everyone to think the same way

Obviously I missed what you were trying to say too.

This is going to be good! It's fun being in the gallery as opposed to the stage.

Yep. It's kinda like the smart person's Jerry Springer. In fact... I think I know where we could even get a fat lady to take her clothes off for us, if you guys really want...

I ain't gettin' on that Airplane again...*shudders*

Actually, I was awaiting more sources...but I guess that is yet to come...

Aww you loved in, WS, admit it. Everyone needs to ride a fat lady in a mumu out of an airplane once and while... how else are you going to relax?

Hehe...yeah, that was a wild ride...and has something Pro for the current debate (thread here http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000421.html ) especially this part

quote:

---

I would try to bum some crack or some other super potent drug off of people so that I could enjoy the remaining few moments of my life free of anxiety and not have to worry about crashing (well ... in the drug related sense) or future side effects of the drug

---

Sounds like a good, solid reason to me for Drug use...

Would also make that fat lady a little more 'tolerable'...hehe...

*Puff, puff*

Of course, from a social standpoint...I guess the consequences of drug use in the thread are pretty good arguments for the Con side

quote:

---

Truth be known though, I'd probably shit my pants, then i'd spend the next 4 mins crying because not only am I going to die, but I have to spend the last 4 mins of my life in pants that I shat in.

---

Yup...that's what he said...and did. Pure gold, baby, puuure goollldd! *Wipes tears of laughter from eyes after reading through thread...*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-23-2002).]

So, would you give the drugs to the fat lady to make her more amenable to your advances, or do you take the drugs yourself to alter your perception of the fat lady? That is the question.

Well, can't speak for Njuice (but I think he won't be needing any drugs for that...hehe...), but I'd need a load of 'em...so the latter.

Trippin'...yeah....

*puff, puff*

Ahh... such time has passed since I've read that thread... good times, good times.

Suho & WS: Just got two words that'll sum it all up... "Yee-haw!"

edit: Grats on 1500 Masa Suho

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 09-23-2002).]

OK just got back to reading thru zour comments.

First Up Suho you are right i re read my post and the punctuation sucked...

Next the drugs i listed individually were so that people could get an idea of what i mean when i am talking about "DRUGS" in generalised terms

I realise that it may not have been the best way to open by negating some of the pro Drugs arguments at such an early stage, that comes with hindsight .

As for the cannibis for health reasons I obviously didnt really make my point clearly enough so here i will attempt to redress that issue,

My feelings towards the legalisation of drugs in general is that they have a negative influence on our society and cause more problems than maybe any other substance taken by man alchohol and cigarettes included, canabis is at the center of medical debate at the moment, as it has been said that it can under certain cumstances have medicinal uses, if this was proven 100% then its use for those purposes i feel would remove it from the illegal drugs trade IF USED STRICTLY UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION; and therefore would not come under debate in this issue.

I want to approach this from a phillisophical point of view, but also wish to introduce facts and figures into my main argument because i believe that having a belief that "DRUGS BEING LEGALISED" is a bad thing must be supported by reasons for those beliefs.

It has been said that there are a lot of drugs and of varying degrees of potency, i agree on this and thats why i feel that the phillisophical approach is the only way forward on this debate. However Individual drugs must be mentioned to illustrate these points i think.

anyway if enough people want me to re -edit my original post in the formal for ease of reading i will happily do so, looking at it now it is very ambiguos in places and certainly not clearly put.


anyway I DONT FEEL BASHED, and if i didnt think i could put up with valid criticisms or other peoples points of view i certainly would not have undertaken this debate.

Tom

Glad to hear you don't feel bashed, Tom. It's up to you whether or not you want to go back and edit your post. If, after reading some of the comments here, you feel you should, I imagine the ref wouldn't have a problem with it. That's his call, of course.

nj: Thanks, man. I didn't notice that at first (and was trying to figure out what you were talking about). What an illustrious way to make the big 1.5, eh?

Ok, um yea.

Here is one source that may want to be used in the legalization issue, it has to do with terrorist funding...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,794609,00.html

Well Tom...re-editing a post in the Formal Debate is always hard on the person following...esp. if they have done tons of research based on your first post...

I would suggest first asking the moderator before actually doing so...

As to whether or not your post needs to be edited...well, that depends largely on you...if you (and only you alone can really decide that...your post isn't bad enough to warrant our...displeasure - IMHO, at least) feel that your post needs to be edited, then I would suggest doing so...after you obtain permission, of course...

Ahhh...peacepipe...want a puff? *puff, puff*

opps .. can I not edit without permission? .. I just was editing my english that I missed .. I switched dealer to dealers .. that is all

[takes the peace pipe] ... ahhhhhhhhhhhh .. just chillin' waiting for the next round .. feeling good about my opening statements

well after reading my opponents reply, i dont think i will need to edit my original, he has made several grave errors (almost on the point of suicidal in a debate...man am i going to love my next reply)....

Ram my compliments on a nice repost to my opening statement, but calling Cocaine,Opium,heroin Harmless drugs !!!!!!!! either you live on a different planet or live with your head in the sand, to have chosen those three drugs which are amongst those that cause most cases of death and drug addiction leaves me completely baffled and saddened that people out there believe them to be harmless.....


anyway enough of that expect my next post in formal within the next few days, and i have nothing to hide, in fact i will give you lots of gorey details about these "harmless drugs"


hehehehe

tom


PS Ram i am sure editing for typo's etc is allowed, my edit was more of an organisational nature and therefore could have affected your reply

Takes a drag on a cigarette




[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 09-23-2002).]

hehe .. just because I call them harmless .. don't get sucked into my little trap .. hehe .. I do have proof myself .. and again this will be fun .. oh and btw .. let's not pick on each other's post "he has made several grave errors (almost on the point of suicidal in a debate"

I didn't comment on your post .. and reframed myself from doing so .. I respected your post (didn't matter how weak or strong I found it to be) and responded to your few comments .. did not attack the style of post

*puff puff, pass... refrains from passing for a moment... puff puff.... ahhhhh, ok now passing it along*

Yea, I'd have to agree with Ramm here. Not in very good taste to "trash" each others posts here, pointing out errors and such. If anything, save it for a reply in the formal thread... Just my opinion...

Should be a good debate.

Tries to reach out and get one more drag on the pipe, but alas, it's worked it's way down the line too far... Instead decides to stare at the pretty colors on everyones shirts... weeeeeeeeeeeee

ram it wasnt an attack on your post but if you read the rest of what i said in that line about "that people think that drugs are harmless" was more of what i was trying to say . That wasnt meant at you individually; but at people that use that argument in the pro legalisation debate time and time again

As for the rest of your statement you raised some very interesting points some of which i havent seen before, so let the fun continue and I look forward to a challenging debate.


Tom

For Ramm, I'm wondering how far the legalization would go? Specifically, would all of these drugs be legal in schools? If not, for what age of child would they still be illegal?

I was also interested in the couple of places where you say that organized crime would be "forced" to do this or that. Isn't that what we're engaged in right now? Organized crime doesn't seem too interested in following the law whether it be to not sell drugs or to pay massive taxes on the legal ones.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-23-2002).]

Yea I would just like to let everyone know that I will be gone for a week. Yes my mother took away my PC for a week because I didn't go to church with her on sunday. Just goes to show you how much enlighting power that religion has over us all.

In the event that a moderator is needed, I pass the privilage to Bugs or Dan, whichever of you can call dibs first

So I'll see you in a week!


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Bugs

I would safely assume if drugs were to become legal that they would have the same weight that alcohol does .. you can't use them til your 18 or 21 .. and I'm sure in certain special cases if the specific drug helped in a medical situation then the parent would sign off and be the one legally responsible for the drugs that their child is using .. I can't argue legal age because I'm not an elected representive of this here country .. [wink wink]

as for the "forcing organized crime" .. we aren't forcing organized crime to do anything .. we don't know how much they have we don't know how much they import and or how they get it into this country .. this legalizing would force not just organized crime in state to register but also foreign organized crime [ie terrorist] to actually make themselves more known .. and if they aren't interested .. this gives us even MORE reason to take them out and it will be easier to locate them would it not? we all know that if we don't pay our taxes we have collectors on our asses .. if you aviod them and are caught your sent to jail .. fraud and more so .. if these does are legal and are now at a set price why would anyone take the chance? unless they are just stupid .. which I'm sure 80% of them are .. drugs are a trillion dollar industry no matter if it is legal or illegal .. so why do we as a country have to sit on the sideline and watch the war on drugs be a lost cause?

please note .. I feel like a defense attorney that doesn't really believe in his client but will defend it til the end .. but at the same time I'm learning my own angles and seeing why some drugs should be legal and why others shouldn't .. please note .. that just because I am on the pro side doesn't mean I believe that drugs should be legal .. I had originally thought the question was Should Mari Be Legal .. and in this case yes I believe it should be

thanks

InSi .. I can't but laugh at your situation .. sorry .. [soft chuckle]


.::. cEll .::. 513

The legalization of Marijuana (no other drugs listed with it) has been a huge issue in Canada for the last couple of weeks, the lastest proposal was that anyone over the age of 16 would be able to buy and use, and it would be available pretty much wherever cigarettes are sold.

Insider (for when you get back) -

Dan - If Canada passes that law, expect a lot of American visitors to the Great White North.

I suppose that would become about as common as people around here going to Mexico for the weekend (week) to get drunk off their ass

[edit: Not so much because it's "legal" there, but if you can see over the counter they'll sell you anything they have ]

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-24-2002).]

Actually, if I hadn't of been in the last Debate, I would have gladly been in this one...on the pro side of legalization. RammStein raises perhaps the best of all questions...what is the alternative? Well, we see that now. The 'War on Drugs' has failed miserably, costing huge amounts of taxpayers money.

Because, after all these years, no other working alternative has been found, one is just creating a market for criminals. One must remember just how old the drug trade is. Also, one must remember, that every attempt made to stamp out drugs, and drug use, has failed. Even such 'hard-line' regimes like China, or the old USSR, where drug use resulted in the 'death penalty', couldn't stamp it out.

And where drugs are legal, the system works. Holland is a good example of this. Now, the system doesn't work perfectly, that has to be understood. But it works a hell of a lot better than the alternative. And it generates revenue, instead of costing huge amounts to combat it.

As for the health concerns, the positives outweigh the negatives...not where the actual drugs themselves are concerned, but the actual health of the users of such drugs...legalizing means controlling purity...and the generated revenues can in turn be used to treat those with problems...and to pay for information campaigns. Also, it would then be possible to do long-term studies on the human effects of such drugs with a larger control group...which in turn leads to better understandings of which drugs are actually harmful, very harmful, or actually deadly, in these regards.

With these arguments, the con side has nothing, absolutely nothing, to bring against them. For if they did, we would have seen the results ages ago...no, they only have empty words to bring to their defense...for clearly the results of the last 10 years have solidly proven that one cannot effectively combat drugs as an illegal entity. It just doesn't work.

One cannot solve a problem by treating the symptioms...one has to go direct to the source. By legalizing drugs, one does just that. The harmful effects of drug use to a society is mainly one of the criminal aspect. Remove that, and the problems of the individual effects are much easier, and cost-effective to deal with.

WebShaman .. I was only trying to point out the obvious .. my next post should further my support .. and this whole time I was thinking about Holland .. how does it work in Holland? why can't it work in the US? what makes drugs so scary? why are they addictive? all these questions .. all have pro and con arguements

but you couldn't have said it better .. though I was mostly on the con side of things before this debate .. I'm beginning to change my perpective

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-24-2002).]

Well, many people have problems with legalizing the issue...because of the moral question...and, of course, because of the mentality of the 'anti-drug' propaganda that has been around for so long. Now, I'm not saying that drugs are great, or nice, or anything along those lines. However, faced with the cold, hard facts that combating the drug problem! has brought to light (namely, that it is just not possible to win a two or more front war), one needs to seriously start considering alternatives. The drug trade has become a global trade, with many countries contributing to it. Strangely enough, the 'industrialized' nations make up the greater part of the consumer group of drug-users...despite massive information campaigns and tough laws against drugs. Well, nothing has seriously 'detained' the flow of drugs...and no amount of money will stem this flow (unless you manage to just buy all the stuff out there up...very impractical). The military arms, the police, governments, just about everything has been tried, with very little success.

Just legalize it. Holland has (well, to a point, anyway), and it hasn't become a land of drugged-out zombies...and their prisons are remarkably leer of drug offenders...

I mean, we've tried just about everything else (and they didn't work)...legalization deserves a chance. Maybe, just maybe, it is better...it is definitely cheaper...

Another thing to consider...is that most terrorist groups fund their movements with drug money. This, of course, makes it hard to trace...because it is illegal to begin with. Legalizing it would make it a lot easier to actually track the money (because it gets taxed...and bought and sold on a 'legal' market, where such records are kept).

Of course, there are a lot more aspects (and interesting ones...just consider the stock exchange...) to legalizing drugs...though I'm not saying it is the 'cure all' way to deal with the issue, maybe it is a better way...

to think .. I thought you WebShaman would be my toughest critic .. I'm not saying though that you support me or drugs for that matter .. but I think I'm in the same shoes as you .. that feeling of "nothing else has worked and drugs aren't going to go away so why not tap into that industry .. and have better control over who is selling what and where"

it will surely make tracking terrorist groups much easier and especially their profits .. when I mention Organized Crime .. I'm speaking internationally as well .. Cuba .. Columbia .. Mexico .. Afghan .. Iraq and Iran .. etc etc

Absolutely.

I mean what's up. I respect my country, America, and its flag, but its laws...nope.

I mean anyone who tries to tell me what I can or can not do with my mind or my body is not representing true freedom and the pursuit of free will. Without free will we are slaves. This whole world is messed up. I want to do what I want, when I want, as long as my actions do not interfere with the actions of others. I mean alcohol is legal, but no one drinks at work. If drugs were to become legal, it would not effect the high work moral of Americans, or anyone else in the world. And that is the main issue. Will society crumble and turn into a chaotic unorganized mess? Of course not. The people who do not do drugs usually do not choose not to do them because they are illegial, they do not do them because they do not like the idea of them, they do not want to be messed up, or they do not want to see alternative realities. They do not do them now, and more than likely hardly anyone would start doing them just because they are legal.

Anyway, blah...

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 09-24-2002).]

Yep, this can very quickly turn into a religious debate or political or any number of others...
i.e. religious: The basic Satanic Creed: Do what ye will, lest ye harm another. (There are several different variations to that, but that pretty much sums them all up). And I know there is a lot more to Satanism then just that, e.g. you have to actually believe in a god and devil (what a disgusting thought...). But that is the general idea Gilbert mentioned.
i.e. political: There are far too many people in this world who think they have the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. Anyone with any political power believes it's their "duty" to declare what is right and wrong, what you can/cannot do, and just what you should/should not do in life. For the most part, these people are Christian and try to make everyone else follow "God's will."


[edit: All right, well I lost my train of thought between the house and here...
Just gonna add this: The only person/people that should have any say in what goes on in the privacy of their own home/s is/are the people involved directly. Consenting adults, be it prostitution or drug use or whatever, should be allowed to do what they want in the privacy of their home. Emphasis on consenting adult, and privacy of own home.

Sorry for the tangent.

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693


[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-24-2002).]

Just to correct something that Lord_Fukutoku said. The Satanic Creed is 'Do what ye will.' Period... The Wiccan Rede is that which reads 'Do what ye will, an' it harm none.'

Just wanted to clarify.

Actually Satanists don't have to believe in God or the Devil. They believe Satan is a good figurehead for their beliefs, just not necessarily a real one.

While being a religion that I don't really agree with(Seeing as I'm Wiccan) it is one that I can respect. They state their beliefs clearly(and sometimes loudly) and hold to them.

Check out The Church of Satan<Anton LaVey>

Their basic tenets are similar to Wicca but skewed toward self gratification and a disregard for the consequences of said actions. Which is to say they are responsible for the consequences t's just that the consequences are an afterthought. Consequences are at the forfront of a Wiccan's mind in their day-to-day actions.

Off-Topic I know but Lord Fuku's statement bugged me for some reason. I guess I felt the need to expound on my differences from Satanists. Heh.

GrythusDraconis

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 09-24-2002).]

ummmm .. guys .. can we keep the focus on drugs not religion .. I mean drugs and religion don't mix very well .. much like we are to keep state/politics and religion seperate let's do the same with drugs and religion

Yes, sorry for the tangent, just the first few things I thought after reading Gilberts post. I could be mistaken (wouldn't be the first time), but I remember a version of the "Do what ye will, lest ye harm another" refering to Satanism (or at least a form of Satanism, as there's probably as many as there are other religions). However, this was several years ago when I was "debating" with a friend on the subject. It very well could have been from someone who had kinda meshed the two belief structures together, I don't know. But thanks for clearing that up.


OK, back on topic... uh what was the topic again?
Ah-ha, proof by mathematical induction...

sees essentially no one in the debate arena, and starts to head back to his cell to study for that blasted quiz this afternoon. Sees a poorly crafted peace-pipe that isn't cashed yet and takes a drag or two. Sets it down thinking WS will be ticked if he finds people imitating him.

BTW, think we can speed this debate up a tad so we can go ahead and legalize a lot of that stuff here so we're not stuck with this second rate green-leafy-substance when WS isn't around?

Or go ahead and take your time

[Edit: More crappy grammer...]
Oh yea, not supposed to be using a lot of slimies... grr...

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-24-2002).]

Sometimes drugs and religion do mix. I'm specifically thinking about peote.

WS, you keep mentioning how Holland is a success story but I've heard just the opposite. I've heard its a virtual cesspool in Amsterdam because of all the drug culture.

There is also something to keep in mind when comparing alcohol usage here in America with other drugs. Alcohol is built into our culture and there are certain restraints that have developed to somewhat protect us from its ill effects. These other drugs have never been legal (for the most part) and to suddenly open the floodgates with one law could be catastrophic to society. I seriously doubt the effects will be as minimal as you "pro" types are suggesting. But I'm always open to hearing counter arguments if you've got some good data.

And for the record, I don't see nearly as much of a problem lessening the laws on possession in the war on drugs. For instance, I think we are doing the black community a huge injustice by incarcerating so many young black males for possession charges when other programs would be far more productive. I might even be open to a limited legalization of marijuana but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for legalizing the "harder" drugs.

Pssst, im sneaking around on my moms PC, shhhh!

Just skimming through!

Don't worry, we won't tell!

Glad you stopped by--I was starting to get the shakes for lack of your smirkies!

quote:

---

WS, you keep mentioning how Holland is a success story but I've heard just the opposite. I've heard its a virtual cesspool in Amsterdam because of all the drug culture.

---

Ever been there? Where did you hear that?

Well, it's not a cesspool...in the literal sense. Could you maybe...redefine what you mean by that? Maybe you mean it is a city of sin?

Well, in that case, I guess it just depends on how one defines 'sin'...since prostitution is legal in Holland (and here in Germany)...and because the people are much more open with sex issues than most americans, I can understand why someone would see that from a cultural standpoint...but one must remember that Holland is a functioning nation...and some drugs are legal there...

So...it just shows that drugs (some, not all) can be legalized...the nation hasn't gone to hell because of it...they also don't have regular shoot-outs with drug dealers, either...*shrugs*

So what is worse? Dead innocent bystanders, or a 'sinful' city...hmmm...who's really getting hurt, here? And which 'sins' are really worse? At least in Holland one does have a choice...nobody is forcing anybody to do anything here...just making some things legal.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-25-2002).]

Just to clarify something....


I WAS in Amsterdam two weeks ago, and yes there are hash cafe's and i spoke to a few people there (dutch people) and two of my closest friends are dutch that live here in the same town as me in the czech republic. They hate amsterdam because of the things that have been mentioned, people coming friom everywhere to smoke a joint in a cafe, now it ISNT LEGAL to buy it on the street and there are a very few relatively speaking place you can buy it, but it must be smoked where purchased.. Now that means any other consumption of it is ILLEGAL or purchasing it elsewheer IS ILLEGAL....and people do buy it elsewhere...

In fact some politicians are talking about repealing the law regarding this in holland, stopping the hash cafe's because of the image it is giving Amsterdam... So a great example for legalising drugs is amsterdam ??? i think not...

one of the few sensible pro drugs arguments i have seen here so far is the DE CRIMINALISATION OF DRUGS and this does not mean legalisation but rather not making it a criminal offence to be in posession of a drug in small enough quantities that it could be shown it is for that one persons use. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE TRADE LEGAL !!! however instead of police chasing those people consuming it as criminals they can divert their time to the people at the source of the problem the dealers and traffickers... This is the approach they have taken in holland outside of the cafe's.

so please if you are going to try and use something to support legalisation of drugs please make sure you quote all the facts.

anyway i am off on location filming for the rest of the week as of 5pm tonight so i will aim to put up my argument at the weekend or monday latest, hehe i am actually filming in Eindhoven so maybe i can pick up some amunition from amsterdam as its only about 100-150 km from there.

YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAA sin city here i come (all in the name of research honestly)

Bugimus...

I never thought of it like that, but that makes sense. The drugs are not incorporated into our society, so people will not be able to handle the floodgates opening. But than again, perhaps the drugs are already incorporated? Laywers = cocaine...hippies=marijuanna...truck drives=crystal meth...models=heroin

Hum

-^^-
--::--
\___/

I forgot one.

Computer Programers=everything.

WS, tomeaglescz correctly expanded on what I meant. And, no, I have not been there to see it myself. As I said, I have heard that was the case and tom has seconded it.

That whole "sin" thing is interesting. Please know that I believe about the best formula for society is a secular government and an ethical populace. So the idea that I was saying that about Amsterdam had very little to do with me just being disgusted with a bunch of "sinful" behavior in a "party pooper" sense. I live in a society that is filled with sin and I am awash in it. I don't have to visit Amsterdam for that, trust me.

It's just that we can't just say that it's a good move to legalize drugs because society won't completely fall apart if we do. That shouldn't be the standard. The standard should be set a little higher than that and we can see what results from legalization by looking at Holland. Is Holland still a functioning country? Of course! But what other kinds of results have come from its drug policy? Would anyone want to duplicate that in other countries? I for one am not thrilled with that prospect.

There is (at least) one good thing to come out of Holland's mj policy -- a booming snack food industry.
Just think, this could be our road out of recession!

I think there is a lot to learn from Holland .. legal drugs need a limit .. etc etc .. sorry I have a headache so further arguing my point I might lose my train of thought so I'm going to stop before I say something that didn't make any sense at all

Ramm, I think the general idea for these debates is for the participants to concentrate primarily on their arguments in the formal thread and then let us peanut-heads go crazy over here. Not that you can't post anything here, just save your best stuff for the formal. At least, that's how the first debate was structured and I think it worked pretty well.

What that means (if it were me at least) is go ahead and post the stuff that doesn't make sense here, but make sure you make sense in the other thread

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 09-26-2002).]

I just needed to get this in here...
If anyone needs an argument for drugs NOT to be legalized I've got one.

I watched The Osbournes on MTV for the first time yesterday (the real life of Ozzy Osbourne and family that is) and, well, the argument is right there...
Just look at Ozzy...

/Dan

{cell 260}
-{ a vibration is a movement that doesn't know which way to go }-

DMS has a pretty good point there... I mean, sure he's a great musician and whatnot... but that's really scary...

quote:

---

It's just that we can't just say that it's a good move to legalize drugs because society won't completely fall apart if we do. That shouldn't be the standard. The standard should be set a little higher than that and we can see what results from legalization by looking at Holland. Is Holland still a functioning country? Of course! But what other kinds of results have come from its drug policy? Would anyone want to duplicate that in other countries? I for one am not thrilled with that prospect.

---

Ok, I can see your point Bugs. However, Americas approach to the 'drug problem' has failed miserably, wouldn't you say? And that is what I am getting at. No country on the face of the earth has ever succeeded in stamping out drugs by making it illegal...or with any other approach. That is fact. So, in light of this fact, what are the alternatives? I have yet to see (or hear) an alternative to the legalizing issue that works...and because Holland does set a precedence that legalizing some drugs can work (without the country falling apart...), I think it should be tried...why not? Nothing else has worked! Putting people in prison is not helping, killing them is not helping, hell, nothing that one uses to 'punish' drug users is working...esp. not in an illegal framework. The fact that most 'drug users' are punishing themselves seems to be forgotten...

When one wieghs the facts, then the legalizing issue becomes a real alternative.

hey tom! stop posting in here and let's get our second round going .. I'm itching over here! HEH!
[/URL]
.::. cEll .::. 513

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-26-2002).]

"the criminalization of drug addiction and the sex trade marginalized the women and put them at risk."
http://www2.mybc.com/news/fs.cfm?source_id=CP&id=1190337

Ok, just read RAMM's post, very nice btw...

Incase there is any confusion, next tom is to reply and give his full opinion as he was expected too, and if he wants he can counter some of what ramm has to say... And then vice versa, ram posts after tom and does the same...

If there is anymore confusion just say so and I can clarify that tommorow.... And it isn't taking too long for this thread to load on my 56k but I think it is about time to make a PG2 for those of you who have mod abilities.

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 09-27-2002).]

thanks InSiDeR .. I'll be sure to keep up the good work

It's getting pretty long...continued here

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-27-2002).]